0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

11 просмотров37 страницComputational Fluid Dynamics in Practice

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Computational Fluid Dynamics in Practice

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

11 просмотров37 страницComputational Fluid Dynamics in Practice

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 37

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcp

M. Sussman

*,1,

Department of Mathematics, Florida State University, 208 Love Bldg., 002C Love Bldg., 487 DSL, Tallahassee, FL 32306-451, United States

Received 1 November 2005; received in revised form 8 June 2006; accepted 16 June 2006

Available online 27 July 2006

Abstract

We present a sharp interface method for computing incompressible immiscible two-phase ows. It couples the level-set

and volume-of-uid techniques and retains their advantages while overcoming their weaknesses. It is stable and robust

even for large density and viscosity ratios on the order of 1000 to 1. The numerical method is an extension of the second-order method presented by Sussman [M. Sussman, A second order coupled levelset and volume of uid method

for computing growth and collapse of vapor bubbles, Journal of Computational Physics 187 (2003) 110136] in which

the previous method treated the gas pressure as spatially constant and the present method treats the gas as a second incompressible uid. The new method yields solutions in the zero gas density limit which are comparable in accuracy to the

method in which the gas pressure was treated as spatially constant. This improvement in accuracy allows one to compute

accurate solutions on relatively coarse grids, thereby providing a speed-up over continuum or ghost-uid methods.

2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

MSC: 65M06; 76D05; 76T05

Keywords: Incompressible ow; Immiscible uids; NavierStokes equations; Multiphase ows; Numerical methods

1. Introduction

Ecient and accurate computation of incompressible two-phase ow problems has enormous value in

numerous scientic and industrial applications. Applications include ship hydrodynamics, viscoelastic free

surface ows, and liquid jets [10,14,15,48,36]. Current methods for the robustcomputation of immiscible

two-phase ows [51,50,9,53,32,26,20,18] are all essentially spatially rst-order accurate as the treatment of

the interfacial jump conditions constrains the overall accuracy to rst-order. Robustness is dened in terms

of the ability of a numerical method to stably handle wide ranges of physical and geometrical parameters.

We note that Hellenbrook et al. [21] developed a formally second-order level set method for two-phase ows,

but the applications did not include large density ratios, surface tension, or complex geometries. It is unlikely

that a straightforward application is possible to ow congurations with such wide parameter ranges. We also

note that Ye et al. [60] presented a second-order Cartesian grid/front tracking method for two-phase ows, but

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 850 644 7194; fax: +1 850 644 4053.

E-mail address: sussman@math.fsu.edu (M. Sussman).

Work supported in part by the National Science Foundation under contracts DMS 0108672, U.S. Japan Cooperative Science 0242524.

0021-9991/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2006.06.020

470

their results did not include complex geometries. Yang and Prosperetti [57] presented a second-order boundary-tted tracking method for single-phase (free boundary problem) ows, but similarly as with Ye et al.

[60], their results did not include complex geometries.

Although the formal order of accuracy of continuum approaches [53,9,51,38,29] or ghost-uid approaches

[26,28] is second-order, numerical dissipation at the free surface reduces the order to rst-order. We propose a

new method which extends the functionality of the method discussed in [45] from single-phase (pressure

assumed spatially constant in the air) to multiphase (gas solution assumed incompressible). The resulting

matrix system(s) are symmetric, guaranteeing robustness of the method, and are capable of stably handling

wide parameter ranges (e.g. density ratio 1000:1, large Reynolds number) and geometries (e.g. topological

merging and breaking). The method is consistent in that it captures the limiting cases of zero gas density

and linear slip lines. Specically, the present method reduces to the single uid method [45] in the limit that

the gas density and gas viscosity approach zero (i.e. the numerical solution of the gas phase approaches the

condition of spatially constant pressure as the gas density approaches zero). The present method provides

additional functionality over single uid methods since one can accurately compute bubble entrainment, bubble formation, eect of wind on water, liquid jets, etc. Further, we demonstrate that the present method provides improved accuracy over existing two-uid methods for a given grid, and provides a speed-up over

existing methods for a given accuracy, as we can robustly compute ows on coarser meshes.

2. Governing equations

We consider the incompressible ows of two immiscible uids (such as liquid/liquid or liquid/gas), governed by the NavierStokes equations:

DU

r pI 2lD qg^z

Dt

rU 0

where U is the velocity vector, q is the density, p is the pressure, l is the coecient of viscosity, g is the gravity,

I is the unit tensor, ^z is the unit vector in the vertical direction, and D is the deformation tensor dened by

T

rU rU

2

At the interface, C, separating the two uids, we have the normal continuity condition for velocity,

D

U n U L n U G n 0

we also have the tangential continuity condition for velocity (if viscous eects are present),

U 0

and the jump condition for stress,

n pI 2lD n rj

where n is the unit normal to the interface, r is the coecient of surface tension and j is the local curvature.

Following the derivation in [12], we can rewrite the preceding governing equations in terms of the following

equations based on the level set function /. In other words, analytical solutions to the following level set equations are also solutions to the original governing NavierStokes equations for two-phase ow. Our resulting

numerical method will be based on the level set formulation.

If one denes the interface C as the zero level set of a smooth level set function, /, then the resulting equations are:

DU

r pI 2lD qg^z rjrH

Dt

rU 0

D/

0

Dt

q qL H / qG 1 H /

l lL H / lG 1 H /

r/

j/ r

jr/j

1; / P 0

H /

0; / < 0

471

3

4

The free surface is represented by a coupled level set and volume-of-uid (CLSVOF) method [50]. In

addition to solving the level set equation (2), we also solve the following equation for the volume-of-uid function F,

DF

F t U rF 0

Dt

(5) is equivalent to

F t r UF r UF

Since $ U = 0, we have

F t r UF 0

Xij fx; yjxi 6 x 6 xi1

and

y j 6 y 6 y j1 g

as,

F ij

1

DxDy

H /x; y; 0 dx dy

Xij

The reasons why we couple the level set method to the volume-of-uid method are as follows:

If one discretizes the level set equation (2), even in conservation form, the volume enclosed by the zero level

set will not be conserved. This problem has been addressed by implementing global mass xes [12], augmenting the level set equation by advecting massless particles [16,24], implementing adaptive mesh renement techniques [43,47], and by implementing high order spectral methods [49,30]. In this paper, we

preserve mass by coupling the level set method to the volume-of-uid method [8,50,58]; eectively, by coupling the two, we are implementing a local mass x instead of a global mass x. The volume-of-uid

function F is used to correct the mass enclosed by the zero level set of / during the level set redistancing

step (see Fig. 1).

If one uses only the volume-of-uid function F to represent the interface separating air and water, then one

must be able to accurately extract the normal and curvature from F. Also, small pieces of volume might

separate from the free surface which can pollute the solution for the velocity. Modern volume-of-uid

methods have addressed these problems [33,22,18] using second-order slope reconstruction techniques

and calculating the curvature either from a height fraction or from a temporary level set function.

The level set function in our implementation is used for calculating the interface normal and is used for

calculating density and viscosity used by the NavierStokes equation. The level set function is not used

for calculating the interface curvature; instead we use the volume-of-uid function.

To clarify what information we extract from the level set function /, and what information we extract from

the volume-of-uid function F, we have:

472

Closest point.

(i,j+1)

(i+1,j1)

Fig. 1. After each time step, the level set function / is reinitialized as the closest distance to the piecewise linear reconstructed interface.

r/

. In this diagram, the shaded area fraction is Fi, j+1,

The linear reconstruction encloses the volume given by F with its slope given by n jr/j

the distance from point xi+1, j1 to the closest point becomes the new value of /i+1, j1.

The normals used in the volume-of-uid reconstruction step are determined from the level set function (see

e.g. Fig. 2).

The height fraction (see Section 5.3) and velocity extrapolation calculations (see Section 5.6) both depend

on the level set function. Therefore, cells in which F is very close to either 0 or 1 will not directly eect the

accuracy of the solution to the momentum equations.

The volume fractions are used, together with the slopes from the level set function, to construct a volumepreserving distance function along with providing closest point information to the zero level set (see

Fig. 1).

(i,j+1/2)

(i+1/2,j)

(i1/2,j)

(i,j1/2)

x

Fig. 2. In order to calculate the volume-of-uid ux, Fi+1/2, j, one must rst nd the linear coupled level set and volume-of-uid

reconstructed interface. The ux across a face becomes the volume fraction of overall volume that is advected across a face. For this

area

illustration, F i1=2;j shaded

.

ui1=2;j DtDy

473

The volume fractions are used to express the interfacial curvature to second-order accuracy (see Section

A.2). We do not use the level set function for nding the curvature because our level set reinitialization step

is only second-order accurate; the curvature as computed from the level set function will not provide the

second-order accuracy that is provided directly from the volume fractions.

We observe that there are possibly more accurate representations of the interface [49,41,16,4,3,40]. However, it must be noted that the accuracy of the computations is limited by the order of accuracy of the treatment of the interfacial boundary conditions and not by the accuracy of the interface representation. Even if

the interface representation is exact, if the velocity used to advance the interface is low order accurate, then the

overall accuracy is constrained by the accuracy at which the velocity eld (specically, the velocity eld at the

interface) is computed. Our results in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 support this hypothesis. We demonstrate secondorder accuracy for interfacial ows in which only rst-order methods have been previously applied. We also

show that we conserve mass to a fraction of a percent in our computations (e.g. largest mass uctuation on

coarsest grid in Section 6.3 was 0.08%).

When implementing the CLSVOF method, the discrete level set function /nij and discrete volume fraction

function F nij are located at cell centers. The motion of the free surface is determined by the face centered velocities, ui+1/2,j and vi,j+1/2, which are derived from the momentum equation. A scalar quantity with the subscript

ij implies that the quantity lives at the cell center (xi, yj),

xi xl0 i 1=2Dx

y j y l0 j 1=2Dy

A scalar quantity with the subscript i + 1/2, j implies that the quantity lives at the right face center of cell ij,

xi1=2 xl0 i 1Dx

y j y l0 j 1=2Dy

A scalar quantity with the subscript i, j + 1/2 implies that the quantity lives at the top face center of cell ij,

xi xl0 i 1=2Dx

y j1=2 y l0 j 1Dy

A vector quantity with the subscript i + 1/2, j implies that the rst component lives at the right face center of a

cell, (xi+1/2,yj), and that the second component lives at the top face center of a cell, (xi, yj+1/2). A diagram illustrating where our discrete variables live is shown in Fig. 3.

The discrete face centered velocity eld is assumed to satisfy the discrete continuity condition at every point

in the liquid (/ij P 0):

ui1;j ui12;j vi;j12 vi;j12

0

7

Div Uij 2

Dx

Dy

To integrate the solution for both the level set function / and the volume-of-uid function F, we rst simultaneously solve (6) and (2). Then, we reinitialize / by constructing a distance function that shares the same

enclosed volume as determined from F, and the same slopes as determined from /.

Both the level set equation and the volume-of-uid equation are discretized in time using second-order

Strang splitting [44] where for one time step we sweep in the x direction then the y direction, then for

the next time step, we sweep in the y direction, then the x direction. Assuming that the advective velocity

is independent of time, this procedure is equivalent to solving for the x direction terms for Dt time, solving

y direction terms for 2Dt time, then solving for the x direction terms again for Dt time.

The spatial operators are split, where one alternates between sweeping in the x direction:

F ij F nij ui1=2;j F ni1=2;j ui1=2;j F ni1=2;j

ui1=2;j ui1=2;j

F ij

Dt

Dx

Dx

/ij /nij ui1=2;j /ni1=2;j ui1=2;j /ni1=2;j

ui1=2;j ui1=2;j

/ij

Dt

Dx

Dx

474

(i,j+1)

(i,j+1/2)

(i1,j)

(i+1,j)

(i,j1/2)

(i,j1)

Fig. 3. Cell centered quantities, /ij, Fij, pij, live at the cell locations (i, j), (i + 1, j), (i, j + 1), etc. The horizontal MAC velocity, ui+1/2, j, lives

at the vertical face centroids, (i 1/2, j), (i + 1/2, j), etc. The vertical MAC velocity, vi, j+1/2 lives at the horizontal face centroids, (i, j 1/2),

(i, j + 1/2), etc.

F ijn1 F ij vi;j1=2 F i;j1=2 vi;j1=2 F i;j1=2

vi;j1=2 vi;j1=2

F ij

Dt

Dy

Dy

n1

/ij /ij vi;j1=2 /i;j1=2 vi;j1=2 /i;j1=2

vi;j1=2 vi;j1=2

/ij

Dt

Dy

Dy

The volume-of-uid uxes, Fi+1/2,j and Fi,j+1/2, are calculated as the fraction of liquid uid to the overall uid

that is advected across a given cell face during a timestep (see Fig. 2). The level set uxes, /i+1/2,j and /i,j+1/2

are calculated by extrapolating the level set function in space and time to get a time-centered ux at given cell

faces. Details are presented in [50,45].

If we add 8 to 9, then we have,

F n1

F nij ui1=2;j F ni1=2;j ui1=2;j F ni1=2;j vi;j1=2 F i;j1=2 vi;j1=2 F i;j1=2

ij

Dt

Dx

Dy

u

u

v

v

i1=2;j

i1=2;j

i;j1=2

i;j1=2

F ij

Dx

Dy

10

If the right hand side of (10) is zero, then F shall be conserved since the left hand side of (10) is written in

conservation form. In other words, if the discrete divergence free condition (7) is satised, then we have mass

conservation. A key distinction between the two-phase algorithm we present here and previous sharp interface

methods is that solutions derived from our method will approach the solutions of the corresponding one-phase

method in the limit that the vapor is assumed to have uniform pressure. In order to achieve this goal, we

implement a liquid velocity extrapolation procedure in which we extrapolate the liquid velocities into the

gas (therefore, we shall store two separate velocity elds). The extrapolated liquid velocity may not satisfy

(7) in vapor cells (/ij < 0). In order to maintain conservation of F, we have the additional step,

vi;j1=2 vi;j1=2

n1

n1

ui1=2;j ui1=2;j

F ij F ij DtF ij

11

Dx

Dy

The resulting advection procedure for F now becomes,

F n1

F nij ui1=2;j F ni1=2;j ui1=2;j F ni1=2;j vi;j1=2 F i;j1=2 vi;j1=2 F i;j1=2

ij

0

Dt

Dx

Dy

475

We remark that in [45], we required that Eq. (7) hold in both liquid cells (/ij P 0) and extrapolated cells; this

requirement necessitated an extrapolation projection step. In this work, we relax this condition and instead

use (11).

4. Temporal discretization: CrankNicolson/TVD RungeKutta, projection method

Our temporal discretization procedure for approximating Eq. (1) is based on a combination of the Crank

Nicolson projection procedure (see e.g. [5,6]) for the viscous terms and the second-order TVD preserving

RungeKutta procedure [42] for the nonlinear advective terms.

Our method follows loosely the outline below:

Sweep 1

U n1;0 U n DtF U n Dt

GU n GU n1;0

Dt Grad P n

2

12

Sweep 2

U n1;1 U n DtF U n1;0 Dt

U n1

GU n GU n1;1

Dt Grad P n1

2

U n1;0 U n1;1

2

13

where F corresponds to the nonlinear advective terms, G corresponds to the viscous terms and Grad P

corresponds to the pressure gradient term. To be more specic, we describe one sweep of our method below.

Prior to each timestep we are given a liquid velocity, UL,n, and a total velocity Un. The main distinction

between our method and previous sharp interface methods is that we store UL,n in addition to storing Un.

In a given time step, immediately after solving for Un+1, we construct UL,n+1,

(

/ij P 0 or /i1;j P 0

ui1=2;j

L

ui1=2;j

extrapolate

otherwise

ui1=2;j

In other words, UL corresponds to U except on gas faces, where we replace the gas velocity in UL with the

extrapolated liquid velocity. UL is then used to calculate the nonlinear advective terms in the liquid, and also

used to advance the free surface.

Prior to each time step, we are also given a live pressure gradient,

n

rp rjrH

n

Grad P

q

a level set function, /n, and a volume-of-uid function, Fn. The live pressure gradient, level set function, and

volume-of-uid function are stored at cell centers. The velocity is stored at both cell centers and face-centers.

As previously noted in Section 3, the subscript ij refers to the center of a computational cell, the subscript

i + 1/2, j refers to the right face center of a cell, and the subscript i, j + 1/2 refers to the top face center of a

cell. A vector quantity with the subscript i + 1/2, j implies that the rst component lives at the right face center

of a cell and the second component lives at the top face center of a cell.

A representative outline of one sweep of our (two-phase) method follows.

Step 1. CLSVOF [50,45] interface advection:

/ijn1 /nij DtU L r/ij

F n1

F nij DtU L rF ij

ij

476

ALij U L rU L nij

Aij U rUnij

Details for the calculation of these terms are presented in Section 5.1 below.

Step 3. Calculate (cell centered, semi-implicit) viscous forces:

(

/ij P 0

U L;n

ij

n

U ij

U nij /ij < 0

(

ALij /ij P 0

Aij

Aij /ij < 0

(

qL /ij P 0

qij

qG /ij < 0

14

n

U ij U nij

1 Lij Lij

Aij g^z Grad P nij

qij

Dt

2

Step 4. Interpolate cell centered forces to face centered forces:

1

ALi1=2;j ALi1;j ALi;j

2

1

Ai1=2;j Ai1;j Ai;j

2(

ALi1=2;j /ij P 0 or /i1;j P 0

Ai1=2;j

Ai1=2;j otherwise

1

Li1=2;j Lij Lnij Li1;j Lni1;j

4

(

/ij P 0 or /i1;j P 0

U L;n

i1=2;j

U ni1=2;j

n

U i1=2;j otherwise

V i1=2;j

U ni1=2;j

15

!

2

rjrH

Dt Ai1=2;j

Li1=2;j

g^z

qi1;j qi;j

q

i1=2;j

See Section 5.2 for steps to discretize the surface tension force q1 rjrH .

Step 5. Implicit pressure projection step:

rp

rV

r

q

rp

n1

U i1=2;j

V

q i1=2;j

16

Section 5.5 provides the spatial discretization associated with the implicit pressure projection step. We

solve the resulting linear system using the multigrid preconditioned conjugate gradient method

(MGPCG) [52].

L;n1

n1

Step 6. Liquid velocity extrapolation; assign U L;n1

i1=2;j U i1=2;j and then extrapolate U i1=2;j into the gas region

(see Section 5.6).

Step 7. Interpolate face centered velocity to cell centered velocity:

1

L;n1

U ijL;n1 U L;n1

U i1=2;j

2 i1=2;j

1 n1

n1

U ijn1 U i1=2;j

U i1=2;j

477

Grad P n1

ij

U ij U ijn1

Grad P nij

Dt

Often in this paper, we shall compare the two-phase algorithm just described, to the corresponding

one-phase algorithm. So, in the appendix (Section A.1) we describe the one-phase equations and

algorithm.

Remarks:

At the very rst time step, we initialize

Grad P 0 Grad P 00 0

then we do ve iterations of the CrankNicolson/RungeKutta procedure ((12) and (13)) in order to initialize an appropriate cell centered pressure gradient,

Grad P 0 Grad P 05

We have found empirically that the cell centered pressure gradient term suciently converges after 5

sweeps. For example, for the very rst time step for the problem of the break-up of a cylindrical jet due

to surface tension (Section 6.5), the relative error in the magnitude of Grad P0(5) is 0.0008.

If Step 6 (velocity extrapolation) is ignored, then our method corresponds in spirit to the sharp interface

ghost-uid approach described in [26,28]. This is because, without velocity extrapolation, UL = U. In this

case, when UL = U, the main dierence separating our approach from previous sharp interface methods

[26,28] is that we treat the viscosity jump conditions implicitly; therefore we have no time step constraints

associated with viscosity. We shall label this method, where liquid velocity extrapolation is ignored, as the

semi-implicit ghost-uid method.

If Step 6 (velocity extrapolation) is not ignored, then our method has the property that, for the limiting

case of zero gas density and zero gas viscosity, our two-phase method is discretely equivalent to the secondorder one-phase approach [45] in which gas pressure is treated as spatially uniform; Section A.1 gives a

review of the one-phase approach.

5. Spatial discretization

5.1. Nonlinear advective terms

The term,

U rUij

is discretized as

0 u

1

u

u

u

uij i1=2;jDx i1=2;j vij i;j1=2Dy i;j1=2

@

A

v

v

v

v

uij i1=2;jDx i1=2;j vij i;j1=2Dy i;j1=2

i;j1=2 and vi;j1=2 are constructed from the cell centered velocity eld Uij using

i1=2;j , vi1=2;j , u

The quantities u

upwind and slope-limited dierencing; e.g.

(

if vi;j1=2 > 0

uij 12 uy;ij

ui;j1=2

ui;j1 12 uy;i;j1 if vi;j1=2 < 0

The slopes uy,ij are computed using second-order Van Leer slope limiting [54],

S min2jui;j1 ui;j j; 2jui;j ui;j1 j; 12 jui;j1 ui;j1 j if s > 0

uy;ij

0

otherwise

478

where

S signui;j1 ui;j1

and

s ui;j1 ui;j ui;j ui;j1

5.2. Surface tension force

In this section, we describe the discretization of the face centered surface tension term,

rji1=2;j rH i1=2;j

qi1=2;j

which is found in Eq. (15).

The discretization of the face centered surface tension term at the face center, (i + 1/2,j), is written as,

H /

H /ij

rji1=2;j i1;jDx

qi1=2;j

17

where

H /

/P0

/<0

and

qi1=2;j qL hi1=2;j qG 1 hi1=2;j

The discretization of the height fraction, hi+1/2,j, is given in Section 5.3 (also see [19,28]).

The curvature ji+1/2,j is computed with second-order accuracy directly from the volume fractions as

described in Section A.2.

Our treatment of surface tension can be approached from two dierent perspectives: (1) the surface tension

term is derived in order to enforce the pressure jump condition as with the ghost-uid approach [26,28]; (2) the

inclusion of the surface tension term (17) as a force term in the momentum equation (15) is equivalent to prescribing the second-order Dirichlet pressure condition of surface tension (39) that would occur if the gas pressure was treated as spatially constant and the gas was assumed to be a void (qG = 0).

5.2.1. Ghost-uid perspective for the surface tension term

Here we give the ghost-uid [26] derivation of the surface tension term for the inviscid Eulers equations.

Without loss of generality, we consider a free surface that is vertically oriented between cells (i, j) and (i + 1, j),

at the location (xi+1 hDx, yj), with liquid on the right and gas on the left (see Fig. 4). At the face separating

cells (i, j) and (i + 1, j), the updated velocity is given by,

n1

ui1=2;j

ui1=2;j

Dt

n1

ui1=2;j

ui1=2;j

Dt

rpL

qL

rpG

qG

rpL

rpG

n G n

L

q

q

18

pLI pG

I rj

19

Gas

(i,j)

Liquid

(i+1,j)

(i+1/2,j)

479

Fig. 4. Ghost-uid treatment for vertical interface with liquid on the right and gas on the left. pi+1,j is the liquid pressure at cell (i + 1, j)

and pi,j is the gas pressure at cell (i, j). pLI is the liquid pressure on interface I and pG

I is the gas pressure on interface I. hDx is the distance

from the interface, I, to the liquid cell (i + 1, j).

L

where the gas and liquid pressure on the free surface are pG

I and p I , respectively. As a result of discretizing (18),

one has,

G

pLi1;j pLI

pG

I p i;j

qL hDx

qG 1 hDx

20

I , and substitutes the results back into the liquid and gas pressure

gradients, one has,

n1

ui1=2;j

ui1=2;j

Dt

pi1;j pi;j

Dx

qi1=2

rjI

H i1;j H i;j

Dx

qi1=2

The surface tension term here is equivalent to (17). Without liquid velocity extrapolation, or if the gas density

is not negligible, then this discretization will be rst-order accurate since we had assumed in our derivation

that the free surface was oriented either vertically or horizontally. Now suppose that we keep the liquid velocity separate from the gas velocity during the calculation of the nonlinear advection terms, and also suppose

that the gas density is negligible, then one can relate the surface tension term to the Dirichlet boundary condition that one would impose for a one-phase method.

5.2.2. One-phase perspective for the surface tension

Here we give the one-phase [19,45] derivation of the surface tension term for the inviscid Euler equations.

In contrast to the two-phase case where there were two boundary conditions at the interface, there is only one

condition on pressure at the interface for the one-phase free boundary problem:

pLI pG

I rj

The momentum equation in the liquid phase is,

uL;n1 uL;

rpL

L

Dt

q

Suppose we are considering a free surface that passes between cells (i, j) and (i + 1, j), at the location

(xi+1 hDx, yj), with liquid on the right and gas on the left (see Fig. 4). Also, denote the gas and liquid presL

sure on the free surface as pG

I and p I , respectively. Then, discretely, one has,

p

p

i1

i

pL pG

rpL

I rjI

i1

DxL rjI

L

L

q

hq

hDxq

H i1;j H i;j

Dx

hqL

480

This latter formulation is equivalent to the former when qG = 0 and we assume that gas pressure is spatially

uniform. In other words, our treatment for surface tension corresponds to the treatment in a second-order

single-phase approach (see Section A.1 or [45]). As mentioned by [19], this specication of the pressure

boundary condition is second-order accurate; as opposed to the ghost-uid perspective, we do not have

to make assumptions regarding the orientation of the interface in order to get second-order.

5.3. Height fraction

The height fraction hi+1/2,j [19,28,45] gives the one-dimensional fraction of water between cells (i, j) and

(i + 1, j). Fig. 5 gives an illustration of the height fraction. The mixed face-centered density is expressed in

terms of the height fraction. The height fraction hi+1/2,j is derived from the level set function as follows:

8

1

/i1;j P 0 and /i;j P 0

>

>

<

/i1;j < 0 and /i;j < 0

hi1=2;j / 0

>

/

/

>

: i1;j i;j otherwise

j/i1;j jj/i;j j

The + superscript stands for the positive part: i.e. a+ max(a, 0).

5.4. Semi-implicit viscous solve

An important property of our sharp-interface treatment for the viscous force terms is that resulting solutions of our two-phase algorithm approach solutions of the one-phase algorithm in the limit of zero gas density and zero gas viscosity (i.e. in the limit, in which the gas pressure is treated as spatially uniform).

The viscous force terms, Lij and Lnij , appear in the discretized NavierStokes equations as shown below,

n

U ij U nij

1 Lij Lij

Aij g^z Grad P nij

qij

Dt

2

21

L is a second-order discretization of the viscous force term, $ 2lD. In two dimensions, the rate of deformation tensor D is given by,

Gas

=0

i-1/2,j+1

i+1/2,j+1=5/8

i+1/2,j=1

+d

i,j=+d

i-1/2,j =5/8

Water

Fig. 5. Illustration of the face-centered height fraction, hi+1/2, j, hi, j+1/2.

D

ux

uy vx =2

uy vx =2

vy

481

In previous work [50], we found the rate of deformation tensor D at cell faces and used a nite volume discretization to approximate $ 2lD. In other words, in previous work we had,

0 2l

1

li;j1=2 uy vx i;j1=2 li;j1=2 uy vx i;j1=2

i1=2;j ux i1=2;j 2li1=2;j ux i1=2;j

Dx

Dy

A

r 2lDij @ l

2li;j1=2 vy i;j1=2 2li;j1=2 vy i;j1=2

i1=2;j uy vx i1=2;j li1=2;j uy vx i1=2;j

Dx

Dy

For a sharp interface method based on the nite volume discretization, the viscosity at a face is given by

[26,28],

8

l

hi1=2;j 1

>

>

> L

>

< lG

hi1=2;j 0

li1=2;j

0

l

>

G 0 and 0 < hi1=2;j < 1

>

>

>

l

l

G

L

:

otherwise

lG hi1=2;j lL 1hi1=2;j

Unfortunately, with the above discretization for the viscosity term, the two-phase method does not correspond to the single-phase method (Section A.1) when lG = 0. This is because velocities in gas cells could be

accidentally included in the discretization of the coupling terms in liquid cells, even if lG = 0. Fig. 6 gives an

illustration of how gas velocities can be accidentally included in the discretization of the coupling terms (the

term (lvx)y in the rst equation and the term (luy)x in the second). Therefore, we use the following node

based discretization instead of the preceding nite volume discretization:

1

0

oluy vx

o2lux

ox

oy

ij

ij C

B

A

r 2lDij @

oluy vx

o2lvy

ox

oy

ij

ij

where

o2lux

2li1=2;j1=2 ux i1=2;j1=2 2li1=2;j1=2 ux i1=2;j1=2

ox

ij

2li1=2;j1=2 ux i1=2;j1=2 2li1=2;j1=2 ux i1=2;j1=2

.

2Dx

(i+1/2,j+1/2)

Gas

=0

=0

Liquid

Fig. 6. Illustration of how the gas velocity at cell (i + 1, j + 1) is inadvertently included in the calculation of the coupling terms when

lG = 0 and when the viscosity coecient is given at the cell faces, li+1/2,j, etc. The + and signs refer to the sign of the level set function.

In this scenario, all the face centered coecients are equal to the liquid viscosity coecient. If the viscosity coecient is given at the nodes,

and if lG = 0, then li+1/2,j+1/2 = 0 and the gas velocity at (i + 1, j + 1) will not be included in the calculation of the viscous coupling terms.

482

oluy vx

oy

li1=2;j1=2 uy vx i1=2;j1=2 li1=2;j1=2 uy vx i1=2;j1=2

ij

oluy vx

li1=2;j1=2 uy vx i1=2;j1=2 li1=2;j1=2 uy vx i1=2;j1=2

ox

ij

o2lvy

oy

.

.

2Dy

2Dx

2li1=2;j1=2 vy i1=2;j1=2 2li1=2;j1=2 vy i1=2;j1=2

ij

The viscosity at a node is given by

8

lL

>

>

>

>

< lG

li1=2;j1=2

0

>

>

>

>

lG lL

:

lG hi1=2;j1=2 lL 1hi1=2;j1=2

.

2Dy

hi1=2;j1=2 1

hi1=2;j1=2 0

lG 0 and 0 < hi1=2;j1=2 < 1

otherwise

8

1

/i1;j P 0; /i;j P 0; /i;j1 P 0 and /i1;j1 P 0

>

>

<

/i1;j < 0; /i;j < 0; /i;j1 < 0 and /i1;j1 < 0

hi1=2;j1=2 / 0

>

/

/

/

/

>

: i1;j i;j1 i;j i1;j1

otherwise

j/i1;j jj/i;j1 jj/i;j jj/i1;j1 j

The + superscript stands for the positive part: i.e. a+ max(a,0).

The components of the deformation tensor, e.g. (ux)i+1/2,j+1/2, are calculated using standard central dierencing, i.e.

ui1;j1 ui1;j ui;j1 ui;j

ux i1=2;j1=2

2Dx

The resulting linear system (21) for U* is solved using the standard multigrid method.

Remarks:

Our discretization of the viscous forces are second-order accurate away from the gasliquid interface, but

only rst-order accurate at the gasliquid interface. We observe rst-order accuracy whether we are implementing our semi-implicit viscous solver as a part of the single-phase algorithm or as a part of the twophase algorithm. Only in places where the free surface is aligned exactly with grid boundaries would our

discretization be second-order accurate.

Our proposed discretization of the node fraction, hi+1/2, j+1/2, is not necessarily the only possible choice. The

critical property that any discretization technique for the node fraction must have, is that hi+1/2, j+1/2 < 1 if

any of the surrounding level set values are negative.

5.5. Projection step

In this section, we provide the pertinent details for the discretization of the projection step found in Eq.

(16),

rp

r

rV

22

q

rp

UV

23

q

483

Div

Grad P

Div V

q

24

and

Grad P

q

respectively. Div is the discrete divergence operator dened by

U V

;

Dx

Dy

25

pi1;j pi;j

Grad pi1=2;j

Dx

pi;j1 pi;j

Grad pi;j1=2

Dy

26

Div Vij

27

pi1;j pij

qi1=2;j

pij pi1;j

qi1=2;j

Dx2

pi;j1 pij

qi;j1=2

pij pi;j1

qi;j1=2

Dy 2

Div V

qi1=2;j qL hi1=2;j qG 1 hi1=2;j

28

where the discretization of the height fraction, hi+1/2, j, is given in Section 5.3.

At impenetrable boundaries, we give the Neumann boundary condition,

rp n 0

and we also modify V to satisfy,

V n0

At outow boundaries, we give the Dirichlet boundary condition,

p0

i.e. if the top wall is outow, then we have pi;jhi 1 pi;jhi .

The resulting discretized pressure equation, (24), is solved for p using the multigrid preconditioned conjugate gradient method [52].

Remark:

In the limit as qG approaches zero, one recovers the second-order projection step described in [45]. In other

words, in the limit of zero gas density, one recovers the second-order discretization of Dirichlet boundary

conditions at the free surface. The discretization, using the height fractions hi+1/2,j, corresponds to the second-order method described by [19] (in the zero gas density limit).

By storing the velocity eld at the cell faces and the pressure at the cell centers, we avoid the checkerboard instability while maintaining a discretely divergence free velocity eld.

We construct a temporary cell centered velocity eld for calculating the advection and diusion terms. Since

at each timestep we interpolate the advective and diusive forces from cell centers to cell faces in preparation for the next projection step, we avoid unnecessary numerical diusion that would occur if we had interpolated the velocity itself from cell centers to cell faces.

484

The liquid velocity uLi1=2;j is extended in a small narrow band about the zero level set of the level set function /. Extension velocities are needed on gas faces (i + 1/2,j) that satisfy /i,j < 0 and /i+1,j < 0. We describe

the initialization of uLi1=2;j below; the case for vLi;j1=2 follows similarly. The extension procedure is very similar

to that described in [45], except that (1) we choose an alternate, more stable, method for constructing our second-order linear interpolant and (2) we do not project the extended velocity eld; in lieu of projecting the

extended velocity eld, we instead discretize the volume of uid Eq. (6) in conservation form.

The steps for our liquid velocity extrapolation procedure are:

1. For each point where /i+1, j < 0 and /i, j < 0 and (1/2)(/ij + /i+1, j) > KDx, we already know the corresponding closest point on the interface xclosest, i+1/2, j (1/2)(xclosest, ij + xclosest, i+1, j). The closest point on

the interface has already been calculated during the CLSVOF reinitialization step (details found in [45], also

see Fig. 1) since the distance at a gas cell xij is,

d jxij xclosest;ij j

2. Construct a 7 7 stencil for ui+1/2, j about the point xclosest, i+1/2, j. A point xi0 1=2;j0 in the stencil is tagged as

valid if /i0 ;j0 P 0 or /i0 1;j0 P 0. A diagram of how this 7 7 stencil is created for extending the horizontal

velocity uextend

i1=2;j is shown in Fig. 7. Please see Fig. 8 for a diagram portraying the 7 7 stencil used for constructing the vertical extension velocities vextend

i;j1=2 .

3. Determine the valid cell (icrit + 1/2, jcrit) in the 7 7 stencil that is closest to xclosest, i+1/2, j.

4. Determine the slopes Dxu and Dyu. In the x direction, investigate the forward dierences,

Dx u ui0 3=2;jcrit ui0 1=2;jcrit

where (i 0 + 3/2, jcrit) and (i 0 + 1/2, jcrit) are valid cells in the 7 7 stencil. In the y direction, investigate the

forward dierences,

Dy u uicrit 1=2;j0 1 uicrit 1=2;j0

where (icrit + 1/2, j 0 + 1) and (icrit + 1/2, j 0 ) are valid cells in the 7 7 stencil.If any of the dierences change

sign in the x(y) direction, then the slope, Dxu(Dyu) is zero, otherwise the slope is taken to be the quantity

Dxu(Dyu) that has the minimum magnitude.

phi<0

F=0

phi<0

F=2/5

phi>0

F=1

Fig. 7. Diagram hi-lighting the valid points in the 7 7 stencil used for constructing the horizontal extension velocities.

485

phi<0

F=0

phi<0

F=2/5

phi>0

F=1

Fig. 8. Diagram hi-lighting the valid points in the 7 7 stencil used for constructing the vertical extension velocities.

5. Construct

crit

uextend

Dy uj jcrit uicrit 1=2;jcrit

i1=2;j Dx ui i

5.7. Timestep

The timestep Dt at time tn is determined by restrictions due to the CFL condition, surface tension, and

gravity:

0

1

r

L

1

2Dx

B1 Dx 1 q

C

qA

;

Dx3=2 ;

Dt < min @

i;j

2 jU n j 2 8pr

2 n

2

ju j jun j 4gDx

The stability condition regarding gravity was determined heuristically in which we have the inequality,

u DtgDt < Dx

The stability condition for surface tension is taken from [9,18]. Other references regarding stability conditions

for incompressible ow are [2,31].

6. Results

In this section we test the accuracy of our numerical algorithm. In a few cases, we shall compare our sharp

interface approach to the semi-implicit ghost-uid approach. Also, we shall compare our two-phase sharp

interface approach to our one-phase sharp interface method. In cases where the exact solution is unknown,

we calculate the error by comparing the solutions on successively rened grids. The error in interface position

is measured as

XZ

Einterface

jH /f H /c j dx

29

ij

Xij

where /f and /c correspond to the solutions using the ne resolution and coarse resolution grids, respectively.

486

X q

2

2

avg

ELiquid

uf;ij uc;ij vf;ij vc;ij ri DrDz

30

ij;/>0

q

2

2

Emax

max

uf;ij uc;ij vf;ij vc;ij

Liquid

31

ij;/>0

In this section we test our implementation of surface tension for the problem of a static two-dimensional

(2d) drop with diameter D. We assume the density ratio and viscosity ratio are both one for this problem. The

exact solution for such a problem is that the velocity u is identically zero. If we scale the NavierStokes equations by the time scale T = Dl/r, and by the velocity scale U = r/l, then the non-dimensionalized Navier

Stokes equations become,

Du

rp Oh2 Du Oh2 jrH

Dt

where the Ohnesorge number Oh is dened as,

l

Oh p

rqD

We investigate the maximum velocity of our numerical method for varying grid resolutions at the dimensionless time t = 250. The dimensions of our computational grid are 5/2 5/2 with periodic boundary conditions

at the left and right boundaries and reecting boundary conditions at the top and bottom boundaries. A drop

with unit diameter is initially located at the center of our domain (5/4,5/4). Our tolerance for the pressure solver and viscous solver is 1.0E 12 (the error is measured as an absolute error and is the L2 norm of the residual). In Table 1 we display results of our grid renement study for 1/Oh2 = 12,000. Our results indicate at least

second-order convergence. These results are comparable to those in [35] where a front tracking method was

used to represent the interface. Our results are also comparable to recent work by [18] in which a height fraction approach for surface tension was tested.

6.2. Surface tension driven (zero gravity) drop oscillations

In this section, we perform a grid renement study for the problem of surface tension driven drop oscillations. In the previous example with parasitic currents, the density ratio was 1:1 and the viscosity ratio was 1:1;

in this example, the density ratio is 1000:1 and the viscosity ratio is 1000:1.

According to the linearized results derived by Lamb [27, Section 275], the position of the drop interface is

Rh; t a P n cosh sinxn t p=2

where

x2n r

nn 1n 1n 2

a3 ql n 1 qg n

Table 1

Convergence study for static droplet with surface tension (parasitic currents test)

Dx

Maximum velocity

2.5/16

2.5/32

2.5/64

7.3E 4

4.5E 6

5.5E 8

487

and Pn is the Legendre polynomial of order n. h runs between 0 and 2p, where h = 0 corresponds to r = 0 and

z = a. If viscosity is present, Lamb [27, Section 355] found that the amplitude is proportional to et/s, where

s

a2 qL

lL 2n 1n 1

We compute the evolution of a drop with a = 1, g = 0, lL = 1/50, lL/lG = 1000, r = 1/2, qL = 1 and qL/qG =

1000. The initial interface is given by R(h,0), with = 0.05 and n = 2. With these parameters we nd x2 = 2.0

and s = 5.0. The uid domain is X = {(r, z)|0 6 r 6 1.5 and 0 6 z 6 1.5} and we compute on grid sizes ranging

from 32 32 to 128 128. The time step for each respective grid size ranges from 0.0007 to 0.000175. Symmetric boundary conditions are imposed at r = 0 and z = 0.

In Table 2, we display the relative error between succeeding resolutions for the minor amplitude RDx(0, t) of

the droplet. The average error Eavg

Amplitude is given by

Z 3:5

Eavg

jRDx 0; t R2Dx 0; tj dt

Amplitude

0

Amplitude is given by

Emax

Amplitude max jRDx 0; t R2Dx 0; tj

06t63:5

In Fig. 9, we plot the minor amplitude versus time for the three dierent grid resolutions.

Table 2

Convergence study for zero gravity drop oscillations r = 1/2, lL = 1/50, lL/lG = 1000, qL/qG = 1000 and a = 2

Dr

Eavg

Amplitude

Emax

Amplitude

3/64

3/128

3/256

N/A

0.00076

0.00021

N/A

0.00172

0.00057

-0.95

"major32"

"major64"

"major128"

-0.96

-0.97

amplitude

-0.98

-0.99

-1

-1.01

-1.02

-1.03

-1.04

-1.05

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

time

Fig. 9. Perturbation in minor amplitude for zero gravity drop oscillations (two-phase sharp interface method). lL = 1/50, c = 1/2, density

ratio 1000:1, viscosity ratio 1000:1.

488

For the standing wave problem, the free surface at t = 0 is described by the equation

y 1=4 cos2px

where = 0.025. The gravitational force is g = 2p. We assume inviscid ow, lL = lG = 0, and the density ratio

is 1000, qL = 1, qL/qG = 1000. The computational domain is a 1/2 by 1/2 box with symmetric boundary conditions at x = 0 and x = 1/2 and solid wall boundary conditions at y = 0. In Fig. 10 we compare the amplitude

(at x = 0) for 4 dierent grid resolutions: Dx = 1/64, Dx = 1/128, Dx = 1/256 and Dx = 1/512. The timestep

for each case is Dt = 0.02, Dt = 0.01, Dt = 0.005 and Dt = 0.0025.

In Table 3, we show the relative error between the 4 graphs (0 6 t 6 10). In Table 4, we provide the percent

error for the maximum mass uctuation for the time interval 0 6 t 6 10,

max 100

06t610

jmasst mass0j

mass0

In Fig. 11, we compare our proposed two-phase sharp interface method to the corresponding onephase method described in Section A.1. They are almost identical, which is expected since our two-phase

sharp interface approach becomes the one-phase approach in the limit of zero gas density qG and zero gas viscosity lG. Also in the same gure, we study the dierence between our sharp interface approach with/without

0.04

"major32"

"major64"

"major128"

"major256"

0.03

amplitude

0.02

0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

10

time

Fig. 10. Amplitude for inviscid standing wave problem. Density ratio 1000:1 (two-phase sharp interface method).

Table 3

Convergence study: relative error between coarse grid computations with cell size Dxcoarse and ne grid computations with cell size Dxne

for amplitude at x = 0 for standing wave problem

Dxcoarse

Dxne

Maximum error

Average error

1/64

1/128

1/256

1/128

1/256

1/512

2.4E 3

6.5E 4

2.8E 4

6.2E 4

1.5E 4

4.9E 5

Relative error measured for the period 0 6 t 6 10. The physical domain size is 1/2 1/2. Dx is the mesh spacing which is 2n1x where nx is the

number of cells in the x direction. For all our tests, Dx = Dy.

489

Table 4

Convergence study: maximum mass uctuation error measured as a percent of the initial mass

Dx

1/32

1/64

1/128

1/256

0.078

0.030

0.015

0.007

Mass error measured for the period 0 6 t 6 10. The physical domain size is 1/2 1/2. Dx is the mesh spacing which is

number of cells in the x direction. For all our tests, Dx = Dy.

0.04

1

2nx

where nx is the

"major256"

"major256_singlephase"

"major256_ghostfluid"

0.03

amplitude

0.02

0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

10

time

Fig. 11. Comparison of two-phase sharp interface method with single-phase method and semi-implicit ghost-uid method. Density

ratio 1000:1.

liquid velocity extrapolation (Step 6 in Section 4). Without liquid velocity extrapolation (a.k.a. the semi-implicit ghost-uid approach), the results do not converge nearly as rapidly as with velocity extrapolation. The no

extrapolation results with Dx = 1/512 are more poorly resolved than the Dx = 1/64 results corresponding to

our sharp-interface approach with liquid velocity extrapolation.

We remark that in (3), we see that the order of accuracy is 1.6 on the nest resolution grids. The order is not

2 since our method is designed to approach a second-order method as qG approaches zero. In this test, we

believe that the error is so small, that the value of qG is big enough to make itself the dominant contribution

to the error. One can also look at qG as being analogous to the cuto used for h in the second-order discretization of the poisson equation on irregular domains [19].

6.4. Traveling wave problem

In [56], experiments were conducted in which traveling waves were generated from wind. In this section we

investigate the performance of our numerical algorithm for simulating traveling waves in the presence of wind.

We shall validate our algorithm by way of a grid renement test. We shall also compare results of our new

algorithm to those results produced by our semi-implicit ghost-uid method.

According to [56], a wind velocity of U = 5 m/s will generate traveling waves with a wavelength k = 15 cm,

a phase velocity C = 50 cm/s, a wave period P = 0.3 s, and a trough to peak wave height H = 1 cm. Also, for a

wind speed of U = 5 m/s, the roughness length is z0a = 0.3 cm and the friction velocity is u*a = 30 cm/s.

490

We initialized our computational domain as a 15 30 cm rectangular box with the initial position of the

water surface given by,

y surface x 15:0

H

cos2px=k

2

We shall assume periodic boundary conditions on the left and right walls, and free-slip boundary conditions

on the upper and lower walls.

The initial velocity in the water is derived using a similar numerical procedure as found in [59]. We compute

a stream function w which is dened in the whole computational domain. In the calculation of w, we assume

the initial vorticity is zero everywhere except on the interface. The vortex sheet strength at the airwater interface is given by,

C H x coskx;

where k = 2p/k is the wave number and x and k satisfy the following linear dispersion relation:

rk 3

qL

x2 gk

32

We have ignored the gas density qG and the water depth (15 cm) in (32) since these values have a negligible

eect on x. In our computations, we used the actual physical properties for air and water: qL = 1.0 g/cm3,

qG = 0.001229 g/cm3, lL = 0.0089 g/(cm s), lG = 1.73e 4 g/(cm s), g = 980.0 cm/s2, and r = 72.8 dyne/cm.

Given these properties, we have x = 20.39. We remark that the linear dispersion relation predicts a period

of P = 2p/x = 0.31 which is very close to the experimental values reported by [56].

Given the vortex sheet strength, we solve for the stream function w using the following equation:

wxx wyy CjrH /j

33

s

2

2

H i1=2;j H i1=2;j

H i;j1=2 H i;j1=2

Dx

Dy

where,

H i1=2;j

1 /ij P 0 or /i1;j P 0

0 otherwise

wi;j1 wi;j1

2Dy

wi1;j wi1;j

vij

2Dx

uij

34

35

The boundary conditions for w in (33) are homogeneous Dirichlet conditions at the top and bottom of the

computational domain, and periodic boundary conditions on the left and right sides.

In [59], the velocity in the air as well as in the water was given by (34) and (35). In our test, we shall initialize

the air velocity to have the characteristic logarithmic wind prole given by,

(

0

y < y surface x z0a

ux; y ua

yy surface x

log z0a otherwise

K

vx; y 0

where K = 0.4 is von Karmons constant, z0a = 0.3 cm is the roughness length, and u*a = 30.0 cm/s is the friction velocity.

491

Given the cell centered initial velocity in the water and air, we interpolate these respective velocity elds

from cell centers to cell faces and then we initialize the face centered velocity V as,

( L

U i1=2;j /ij P 0 or /i1;j P 0

V i1=2;j

UG

otherwise

i1=2;j

The initial velocity should be divergence free so we project V as described in Section 5.5 in order to insure a

discretely divergence free initial velocity eld. After the projection step, we initialize the liquid and gas velocity

with the projected velocity U and then we extend the liquid velocity into the gas in order to construct UL. In

Fig. 12 we plot the initial velocity elds UL and U.

In Fig. 13, we compare the amplitude (at x = 0) versus time for three dierent grid resolutions: Dx = 15/32,

Dx = 15/64 and Dx = 15/128. The timestep for each case is Dt = 0.0008, Dt = 0.0004, and Dt = 0.0002. In

Table 5, we show the relative error between the 3 graphs (0 6 t 6 1). In Fig. 14, we plot the amplitude for

our sharp interface without liquid velocity extrapolation (Step 6 in Section 4). Without liquid velocity extrapolation (a.k.a. the semi-implicit ghost-uid approach), the results do not converge nearly as rapidly as with

velocity extrapolation. The no extrapolation results with Dx = 15/128 are more poorly resolved than the

Dx = 15/64 results corresponding to our sharp-interface approach with liquid velocity extrapolation.

Fig. 12. Initial velocity eld for wind driven wave problem. Left: initial liquid velocity UL derived from stream function. Right: initial

combined liquid/gas velocity U. Wind velocity in the gas has logarithmic prole. Grid resolution is 128 256.

492

0.8

"32x64"

"64x128"

"128x256"

0.6

amplitude

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

time

Fig. 13. Amplitude for traveling wave problem with wind. Density ratio 813:1 (two-phase sharp interface method).

Table 5

Convergence study: relative error between coarse grid computations with cell size Dxcoarse and ne grid computations with cell size Dxne

for amplitude at x = 0 for traveling wave problem with wind

Dxcoarse

Dxne

Maximum error

Average error

15/32

15/64

15/64

15/128

0.122

0.057

0.031

0.014

Relative error measured for the period 0 6 t 6 1. The physical domain size is 15 30. Dx is the mesh spacing which is

number of cells in the x direction. For all our tests, Dx = Dy.

0.8

15

nx

where nx is the

"32x64_no_extrapolation"

"64x128_no_extrapolation"

"128x256_no_extrapolation"

0.6

amplitude

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

time

Fig. 14. Amplitude for traveling wave problem with wind. Density ratio 813:1. Velocity extrapolation is disabled (semi-implicit ghostuid method).

493

Remarks:

We measured rst-order accuracy using our sharp-interface method (with velocity extrapolation). We

attribute this to how we obtained our initial velocity eld in the liquid. The discretization to the right

hand side of (33) is a low order approximation to the delta function; nonetheless, we see signicant

improvement in our calculations with velocity extrapolation, as opposed to without. Without velocity

extrapolation, we do not see any convergence for the grid sizes used.

The computations in [59] (using a continuum approach) were limited to a wave Reynolds number of

around 150 and a density ratio of 100:1. Also, wind was not taken into account in their computations. In

the results we present here, using the actual physical properties of air and water, the wave Reynolds

L

number is Re q2plCkL 12875 and the density ratio is 813:1.

6.5. Capillary instability

In this section, we test our sharp-interface approach on the classical Rayleigh capillary instability problem in which a slightly perturbed cylindrical column of liquid is driven to break up into droplets by surface

tension (capillary) eects. In this test problem we use parameters that are comparable to those found in

[50].

We consider an initially perturbed cylindrical column of water in air. The shape of the initial interface is

rz r0 cos2pz=k

36

We compute on a 3d-axisymmetric domain X = {(r, z)|0 6 r 6 k/4 and 0 6 z 6 k/2}. Symmetric boundary conditions are enforced at r = 0, z = 0 and z = k/2. Outow (pressure equals zero) boundary conditions are enforced at r = k/4. The relevant dimensional parameters for this test problem are r0 = 6.52 lm, = 1.3 lm,

k = 60 lm, lL = 1.138 102 g/(cm s), lG = 1.77 104 g/(cm s), qL = 1.0 g/cm3, qG = 0.001225 g/cm3, and

r = 72.8 dynes/cm. In our computations we use the following dimensionless parameters: the Reynolds number

Re = qLLU/lL = 7.5, the Weber number We = qLLU2/r = 1.0, L = 1 lm, U = 8.53 m/s and the density and

viscosity ratios are 816 and 64, respectively.

In Fig. 15, we display the results of our computations for the capillary jet as it breaks up. In Table 6, we

measure the relative errors for the interface and velocity eld for grid resolutions ranging from 16 32 to

64 128. The time step ranged from Dt = 0.04 to Dt = 0.01.

As shown in Table 6, we obtain about rst-order accuracy for the solution in the liquid. We attribute our

low order accuracy to how we discretize the viscosity term,

1

r 2lD;

q

37

at the interface. Suppose lG = 0 and the zero level set crosses between cells (i, j) (/ij < 0) and (i + 1, j)

(/i+1, j P 0). In this case the values for l and q jump from lG to lL and from qG to qL abruptly where the

level set function changes sign; i.e. our discretization of l and q in Eq. (37) does not incorporate specic information about the location of the zero level set in between cells (i, j) and (i + 1, j), except that the zero level set is

somewhere between these two cells. We remark that, although we observe rst-order accuracy using our sharp

interface approach, our errors are considerably smaller than those presented in [50]. We also get comparable

results when calculating the break-up of a liquid jet using our single-phase method (Section A.1, see Table 8

and Fig. 16).

If we reduce the viscosity further, i.e. set the Reynolds number Re = 200, then we get much closer to second-order convergence using our sharp interface approach, as illustrated in Table 7.

6.6. Bubble dynamics

In this section, we compute the steady state shapes of a gas bubble rising in a viscous Newtonian liquid. For

comparison, we use the experimental results found in [7,25] and computational results in [39].

494

t=110.0

t=100.0

t=80.0

t=40.0

Fig. 15. Capillary instability. Two-phase sharp interface method. qL/qG = 816, lL/lG = 64. Grid resolution is 64 128.

Table 6

Convergence study for the Rayleigh capillary instability problem using the two-phase sharp interface method

Grid

Einterface

Eavg

Liquid

Emax

Liquid

Eavg

vapor

16 32

32 64

64 128

N/A

14.4

7.9

N/A

8.0

4.5

N/A

0.012

0.009

N/A

24.8

11.6

Elapsed time is t = 80. The viscosity and density ratios are lL/lG = 64 and qL/qG = 816, respectively. The Reynolds number is 7.5.

495

Table 7

Convergence study for the Rayleigh capillary instability problem using the two-phase sharp interface method

Grid

Einterface

Eavg

Liquid

Emax

Liquid

Eavg

vapor

16 32

32 64

64 128

N/A

4.2

0.9

N/A

3.2

1.1

N/A

0.013

0.004

N/A

32.8

11.1

Elapsed time is t = 80. The viscosity and density ratios are lL/lG = 64 and qL/qG = 816, respectively. The Reynolds number is 200.

Table 8

Convergence study for the Rayleigh capillary instability problem using the single-phase sharp interface method

Grid

Einterface

Eavg

Liquid

Emax

Liquid

16 32

32 64

64 128

N/A

13.6

7.5

N/A

7.8

4.3

N/A

0.012

0.011

As in [7,25], we will present our computational results in terms of the following dimensionless groups. The

Reynolds number Re, the Eotvos number Eo, and the Morton number Mo are dened as follows:

Re

qLU

gL

Eo

gL2 U

r

Mo

gg4L

qr3

38

where q is the liquid density, L is the bubble diameter, U is a characteristic velocity, gL is the liquid viscosity, r

is the surface tension, and g is the acceleration of gravity.

Another set of useful dimensionless numbers, although not independent of those in (38), are the Weber

number We, the Froude number Fr, and the drag coecient CD:

We

qLU 2

r

Fr

U2

gL

CD

4qgL2

3gL U

In all of our bubble calculations, we use adaptive mesh renement[46] with a base coarse grid of 24 72 grid

cells and three levels of adaptivity. The computational domain size was 2.0 6.0. Our computations use 3d-axisymmetric rz coordinates. A comparison of computed terminal bubble rise velocity versus previous computational and experimental results are reported in Table 9. A comparison of computed terminal bubble shapes

versus previous computational and experimental results are reported in Fig. 17. Our comparisons include

oblate ellipsoidal cap bubbles studied by [7] (Eo = 243, Mo = 266, and Re = 7.77 for bubble Fig. 2(d) and

Eo = 116, Mo = 5.51, and Re = 13.3 for bubble Fig. 3(d)), spherical cap bubbles studied by Hnat and Buckr

master [25] (Re = 19.4, Mo = 0.065, and C = 4.95, where C m2 =g

1=3 ), and a disk-bubble studied by Ryskin

and Leal [39] (R = 100 and We = 10).

Finally, we remark that for these bubble rise test problems, the semi-implicit ghost-uid approach (our

two-phase approach with velocity extrapolation disabled) produces results comparable with our two-phase

approach. Results for the semi-implicit ghost-uid approach are shown in Table 10 and Fig. 18.

6.6.1. Full 3d bubble dynamics

As a validation of our sharp interface method in 3 dimensions, we compute bubble motion in 3d-Cartesian

coordinates (x, y, and z) and compare our results to the corresponding 3d-axisymmetric computations. The

dimensions of the computational domain was 4 4 6. We computed 3d bubble motion on an adaptive grid

with base coarse grid size of 16 16 24 and 3 additional levels of adaptivity. In Fig. 19 we show the computed bubble shape in which we used the same physical properties as the D = 12.15 case in Hnat and Buckmasters paper [25]. The experimental rise speed (in terms of the Re number) is 19.4 and our computed rise

speed is 19.5. In Fig. 20 we show the computed bubble shape in which we used the same physical properties

as in Fig. 3(d) of Bhaga and Webers paper [7]. The experimental rise speed (in terms of the Re number) is 13.3

and our computed rise speed is 13.6.

496

t=110.0

t=100.0

t=80.0

t=40.0

Fig. 16. Capillary instability. Single-phase sharp interface method. qL/qG = 816, lL/lG = 64. Grid resolution is 64 128.

Table 9

Comparison of computed terminal bubble rise speed (in terms of the Re number) compared with experiments (Bhaga and Weber,

Buckmaster) and compared with previous calculations (Ryskin and Leal)

Case

Experiment/previous result

Fig. 3d (Bhaga and Weber)

Ryskin and Leal (Re = 100, We = 10)

Buckmaster (D = 12.15)

8.3

14.1

97.5

19.8

7.8

13.3

100

19.4

497

Fig. 17. Comparison of our numerical results (two-phase sharp interface method) with experimental/benchmark results. Upper left: Bhaga

and Weber (Fig. 2, bubble (d)). Upper right: Bhaga and Weber (Fig. 3, bubble (d)). Lower left: Hnat and Buckmaster. Lower right: Ryskin

and Leal.

Table 10

Comparison of computed terminal bubble rise speed (in terms of the Re number) using the semi-implicit ghost-uid sharp interface

method compared with experiments (Bhaga and Weber, Buckmaster) and compared with previous calculations (Ryskin and Leal)

Case

Semi-implicit ghost-uid

Experiment/previous result

Fig. 3d (Bhaga and Weber)

Ryskin and Leal (Re = 100, We = 10)

Buckmaster (D = 12.15)

8.1

13.7

97.6

19.7

7.8

13.3

100

19.4

In this section we compute the formation of bubbles caused by the injection of air into a container of liquid.

Our computations use 3d-axisymmetric rz coordinates. We enforce inow boundary conditions at the bottom

of the domain (z = 0),

rp n 0

uinflow

U n

0

r < rnozzle

otherwise

498

Fig. 18. Comparison of our numerical results (two-phase semi-implicit ghost-uid method) with experimental/benchmark results. Upper

left: Bhaga and Weber (Fig. 2, bubble (d)). Upper right: Bhaga and Weber (Fig. 3, bubble (d)). Lower left: Hnat and Buckmaster. Lower

right: Ryskin and Leal.

Fig. 19. Full 3d computations of a rising gas bubble in liquid. Physical properties correspond to the D = 12.15 case in Hnat and

Buckmaster. Left: side. Right: bottom.

Symmetry boundary conditions are given at r = 0, free-slip conditions at r = rhigh, and outow conditions at

the top of the domain (z = zhigh):

p0

499

Fig. 20. Full 3d computations of a rising gas bubble in liquid. Physical properties correspond to Fig. 3(d) case in Bhaga and Weber. Left:

side. Right: bottom.

Fig. 21. Bubble formation computed using two-phase sharp interface method. Nozzle radius 8.5E 4m. Inow velocity 0.44 m/s. Density

ratio 1015:1, Viscosity ratio 6923:1.

500

We compare results of our two-phase sharp interface method with experimental results reported by Helsby

and Tuson [23]. Our target is Fig. 1(e) in [23]. This corresponds with a nozzle radius of 8.5E 4m and an

inow velocity of 0.44 m/s. Based on the physical properties of the case-e system, one has the Reynolds number equal to 3.6, the Weber number equal to 3.06, the density ratio equal to 1015:1 and the viscosity ratio

equal to 6923:1. We used Adaptive mesh renement [46] to compute the solutions for the bubble formation

problem with a base coarse grid of 32 96 grid cells and three levels of adaptivity. There were 16 ne grid

cells spanning the nozzle radius. In Fig. 21 we illustrate our computational results. The bubble diameters

for the 2nd and 3rd bubbles were 4.85E 3m and 4.90E 3m, respectively, which is in good agreement with

the experimental result 4.99E 3m.

7. Conclusions

A sharp interface method for two-phase ows has been developed. Our method has been designed to

reduce to a single-phase approach in the limiting case of zero gas density and zero gas viscosity. Also,

a new cell-centered semi-implicit treatment for the viscous terms has been developed which enables us to

bypass the viscous time step constraint while treating the viscosity jump as sharp. For problems with

a thin free-surface boundary layer, our results are superior to the semi-implicit ghost-uid method.

For problems in which the Reynolds number is large in the liquid, our results demonstrate second-order

accuracy for the liquid solution of two-phase incompressible ows. For problems in which viscous eects

are dominant, both our two-phase and one-phase sharp interface approaches become rst-order accurate. In fact, the errors of all three approaches, (1) our proposed sharp interface method, (2) our semiimplicit ghost-uid method, and (3) our single-phase method are all comparable to each other when

viscous eects are suciently present. When viscous eects are weak, then our sharp interface approach

gives higher accuracy than our semi-implicit ghost-uid approach. This is expected, since it is for this

class of problems that the solutions admitted from a ghost-uid approach (which assumes continuity of

the tangential velocity) diverge from our sharp-interface approach (and diverge from a one-phase

approach). The improved accuracy over conventional rst-order continuum approaches and ghostuid approaches allows us to resolve computations using a coarse mesh where otherwise a ne mesh is

required. As demonstrated in our bubble formation test, our new method can reliably handle complex

interfacial geometries.

Acknowledgments

We thank D. Kikuchi and S. Yamaguchi for their help in preparing this manuscript.

Appendix A

A.1. One-phase algorithm

The one-phase algorithm addresses a two-phase ow problem in which the liquid is assumed to behave

incompressibly, and the pressure in the gas is spatially constant [45,17,11].

In the liquid we have,

DU

r pI 2lD qg^z

Dt

rU 0

q

where U is the velocity vector, q is the density, p is the pressure, l is the coecient of viscosity, g is the

gravity, I is the unit tensor, ^z is the unit vector in the vertical direction, and D is the deformation tensor

dened by

D

rU rU

2

501

In the vapor, we assume p(t) is constant in space. The vapor viscosity lG and density qG are assumed to be

zero. The free surface boundary conditions are enforced by specifying the following pressure boundary condition at the free surface:

px; t pvapor t rj 2lL DL n n

39

where j is the local mean curvature, lL is the liquid viscosity, and DL is the rate of deformation for the liquid.

If one denes the interface C as the zero level set of a smooth level set function, /, then the resulting equations are written as:

DU

r pI 2lD qg^z rj pvapor trH

Dt

rU 0

D/

0 q qL H / l lL H /

Dt

40

41

where j(/) and H(/) are dened by Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively.

curvature "A"

curvature "B"

Curvature "C"

Fig. 22. The volume fractions in the following 3 7 stencil are used to approximate curvature A to second-order accuracy. In order to

compute curvature B to second-order accuracy, one must linearly interpolate between curvature A and curvature C.

502

Boundary conditions must be specied in the vapor (/ < 0). The boundary conditions are p = 0 and

U U liquid

extrapolate . In the pressure projection step, the density is expressed in terms of the height fraction (see

Eq. (28) except replace qG with zero). The discretization of the pressure projection step is second-order accurate (see [19]). As in [19,45], we prescribe a cuto for the height fraction hi+1/2, j (see Eq. (28)) which is 0.001.

Further details for the discretization of (40) thru (41) are given in [45].

A.2. Curvature discretization

The curvature on the free surface is computed to second-order accuracy directly from the volume fractions

[22]. Previous work in this area include that by Chorin [13], Poo and Ashgriz [34], Aleinov and Puckett [1],

Williams et al. [55] and more recently, using PROST, Renardy et al. [37]. The method we use here is explicit,

localized, and can be shown thru Taylor series expansion to be second-order accurate for rz or 3d coordinate

systems. The method is based on reconstructing the height function directly from the volume fractions [22].

Without loss of generality, we assume that the free surface is oriented more horizontal than vertical. The orientation of the free surface is determined from the level set function since n = $//|$/|. A 3 7 stencil of volume fractions is constructed about cell (i,j) (see Fig. 22). The 3 vertical

sums, F i0 , i 0 = i 1, i, i + 1 correspond

R xi1=2

1

to the integrals of the height function h(x) (see Fig. 23); i.e. F i Dx xi1=2 hx dx Cj. It can be shown that

(Fi+1 Fi1)/(2Dx) is a second-order approximation to h 0 (xi) and that (Fi+1 2Fi + Fi1)/Dx2 is a secondorder approximation to h00 (xi). A slightly more complicated procedure is used in axisymmetric coordinate systems; the height function h(r) is assumed to have the form ar2 + br + c. The integral of rh(r) is related with F i0 ,

i 0 = i 1, i, i + 1 in order to solve for the 3 unknowns a, b and c. For vertically oriented interfaces in axisymmetric coordinateR systems, the F j0 represent the integrals of the square of the height function h(z) (up to a conz

1

stant): F j0 Dz

p z j00 1=2 hz2 dz Ci. In other words, (Fj+1 Fj1)/(2Dz) is a second-order approximation

j 1=2

to dh(z)2/dz and (Fj+1 2Fj + Fj1)/Dz2 is a second-order approximation to d2(h(z)2)/dz2. The resulting

cur777vature is obtained directly from the height function (whether it be h(r), h(z) or h(x, y)).

This procedure for nding curvature will return a second-order approximation to the curvature on the

interface passing thru cell (i, j) located at x = (i + 1/2)Dx (horizontal orientation) or y = (j + 1/2)Dy (vertical

(i1,j+3)

(i+1,j+3)

h(x)

(i1,j3)

(i+1,j3)

(i1/2,j7/2) (i+1/2,j7/2)

Fig. 23. Stencil for calculating the curvature in cell (i, j) when the level set function changes sign between cells (i, j) and (i, j + 1). The shaded

P

area corresponds to the

vertical sum of the volume fractions, DxDy j3

J j3 F i;J , and the shaded area also corresponds to the integral of the

R xi1=2

height function h(x), xi1=2

hx dx Cj.

503

Table 11

Convergence study for computing curvatures from volume fractions of a unit sphere in axisymmetric geometry

Dx

Maximum error

Average error

1/16

1/32

1/64

0.0104

0.0024

0.0006

0.0037

0.0009

0.0002

The physical domain size is 2 4. Dx is the mesh spacing which is 2/nx, where nx is the number of cells in the x direction. For all of our

tests, Dx = Dy.

Table 12

Convergence study for computing curvatures from volume fractions of a unit sphere in three-dimensional geometry

Dx

Maximum error

Average error

1/8

1/16

1/32

0.094

0.050

0.010

0.0125

0.0036

0.0009

The physical domain size is 4 4 4. Dx is the mesh spacing which is 4/nx, where nx is the number of cells in the x direction. For all of our

tests, Dx = Dy = Dz.

orientation). In order to nd jI(F) to second-order accuracy (17), we have two dierent cases when the level set

function changes sign between cells (i, j) and (i + 1, j): (1) the interface is orientated vertically, in which case

h < 1=2

jij

jI

ji1;j otherwise

or (2) the interface is orientated horizontally, in which case

jI 1 hjij hji1;j

In Tables 11 and 12, we display the average error and maximum error for the case of a sphere in axisymmetric and three-dimensional coordinate systems, respectively.

References

[1] I. Aleinov, E.G. Puckett, Computing surface tension with high-order kernels, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on

Computational Fluid Dynamics, Lake Tahoe, CA, 1995.

[2] A.S. Almgren, J.B. Bell, P. Colella, L.H. Howell, M. Welcome, A conservative adaptive projection method for the variable density

incompressible NavierStokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 142 (1998) 146.

[3] E. Aulisa, S. Manservisi, R. Scardovelli, A mixed markers and volume-of-uid method for the reconstruction and advection of

interfaces in two-phase and free-boundary ows, J. Comp. Phys. 188 (2003) 611.

[4] E. Aulisa, S. Manservisi, R. Scardovelli, A surface marker algorithm coupled to an area-preserving marker redistribution method for

three-dimensional interface tracking, J. Comp. Phys. 197 (2) (2004) 555584.

[5] J.B. Bell, P. Colella, H.M. Glaz, A second-order projection method for the incompressible NavierStokes equations, J. Comput. Phys.

85 (December) (1989) 257283.

[6] J.B. Bell, D.L. Marcus, A second-order projection method for variable-density ows, J. Comput. Phys. 101 (1992) 334348.

[7] D. Bhaga, M.E. Weber, Bubbles in viscous liquids: shapes, wakes and velocities, J. Fluid Mech. 105 (1981) 6185.

[8] A. Bourlioux, A coupled level-set volume-of-uid algorithm for tracking material interfaces, in: Proceedings of the 6th International

Symposium on Computational Fluid Dynamics, Lake Tahoe, CA, 1995.

[9] J.U. Brackbill, D.B. Kothe, C. Zemach, A continuum method for modeling surface tension, J. Comput. Phys. 100 (1992) 335353.

[10] S. Bradford, N.D. Katopodes, Hydrodynamics of turbid underows. Part II: aggradation, avulsion and channelization, Journal of

Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 125 (10) (1999) 10161028.

[11] A. Caboussat, M. Picasso, J. Rappaz, Numerical simulation of free surface incompressible liquid ows surrounded by compressible

gas, J. Comput. Phys. 203 (2) (2005) 626649.

[12] Y.C. Chang, T.Y. Hou, B. Merriman, S. Osher, Eulerian capturing methods based on a level set formulation for incompressible uid

interfaces, J. Comput. Phys. 124 (1996) 449464.

[13] A.J. Chorin, Curvature and solidication, J. Comput. Phys. 57 (1985) 472490.

[14] T.J. Craft, J.W. Kidger, B.E. Launder, Three dimensional modelling of turbulent free-surface jets, in: W. Rodi, D. Laurence (Eds.),

Engineering Turbulence Modelling and Measurements, vol. 4, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999, pp. 7382.

504

[15] D.G. Dommermuth, M. Gharib, H. Huang, G.E. Innis, P. Maheo, E.A. Novikov, J.C. Talcott, D.C. Wyatt, Turbulent free-surface

ows: a comparison between numerical simulations and experimental measurements, in: Proceedings of the 21st Symposium on Naval

Hydro, Trondheim, 1996, pp. 249265.

[16] D. Enright, R. Fedkiw, J. Ferziger, I. Mitchell, A hybrid particle level set method for improved interface capturing, J. Comp. Phys.

183 (1) (2002) 83116.

[17] D. Enright, S. Marschner, R. Fedkiw, Animation and rendering of complex water surfaces, in: SIGGRAPH 2002, volume ACM TOG

21, 2002, pp. 736744.

[18] M. Francois, S. Cummins, E. Dendy, D. Kothe, J. Sicilian, M. Williams, A balanced-force algorithm for continuous and sharp

interfacial surface tension models within a volume tracking framework, J. Comput. Phys. 213 (1) (2006) 141173.

[19] F. Gibou, R. Fedkiw, L.-T. Cheng, M. Kang, A second order accurate symmetric discretization of the poisson equation on irregular

domains, J. Comput. Phys. 176 (2002) 205227.

[20] D. Gueyer, J. Li, A. Nadim, R. Scardovelli, S. Zaleski, Volume of uid interface tracking with smoothed surface stress methods for

three-dimensional ows, J. Comput. Phys. 152 (1999) 423456.

[21] B. Helenbrook, L. Martinelli, C. Law, A numerical method for solving incompressible ow problems with a surface of discontinuity,

Journal of Computational Physics 148 (1999) 366396.

[22] J. Helmsen, P. Colella, E.G. Puckett, Non-convex prole evolution in two dimensions using volume of uids, LBNL Technical Report

LBNL-40693, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1997.

[23] F.W. Helsby, K.R. Tuson, Behaviour of air bubbles in aqueous solutions, Research 8 (1955) 270.

[24] S. Hieber, P. Koumoutsakos, A Lagrangian particle level set method, Journal of Computational Physics 210 (1) (2005) 342367.

[25] J.G. Hnat, J.D. Buckmaster, Spherical cap bubbles and skirt formation, Physics of Fluids 19 (2) (1976) 182194.

[26] M. Kang, R. Fedkiw, X.-D. Liu, A boundary condition capturing method for multiphase incompressible ow, J. Sci. Comput. 15

(2000) 323360.

[27] H. Lamb, Hydrodynamics, Dover Publications, New York, 1932.

[28] H. Liu, S. Krishnan, S. Marella, H.S. Udaykumar, Sharp interface cartesian grid method II: a technique for simulating droplet

interactions with surfaces of arbitrary shape, J. Computational Physics 210 (1) (2005) 3254.

[29] Daniel Lorstad, Laszlo Fuchs, High-order surface tension VOF-model for 3D bubble ows with high density ratio, Journal of

Computational Physics 200 (1) (2004) 153176.

[30] E. Marchandise, J.-F. Remacle, N. Chevaugeon, A quadrature-free discontinuous Galerkin method for the level set equation, Journal

of Computational Physics 212 (1) (2006) 338357.

[31] M.L. Minion, On the stability of Godunov-projection methods for incompressible ow, J. Comput. Phys. 123 (2) (1996) 435449.

[32] D. Nguyen, R. Fedkiw, M. Kang, A boundary condition capturing method for incompressible ame discontinuities, J. Comput. Phys.

172 (2001) 7198.

[33] J.E. Pilliod, E.G. Puckett, Second-order accurate volume-of-uid algorithms for tracking material interfaces, Journal of

Computational Physics 199 (2) (2004) 465502.

[34] J.Y. Poo, N. Ashgriz, A computational method for determining curvatures, J. Comput. Phys. 84 (1989) 483491.

[35] S. Popinet, S. Zaleski, A front-tracking algorithm for accurate representation of surface tension, International Journal for Numerical

Methods in Fluids 30 (6) (1999) 775793.

[36] H. Rasmussen, A. Bach, O. Hassager, 3D transient free surface viscoelastic ow, in: XIIth International Workshop on Numerical

Methods for Non-Newtonian Flows, Abstracts, June, 2001, Monterray Bay, USA.

[37] Y. Renardy, M. Renardy, Prost: A parabolic reconstruction of surface tension for the volume-of-uid method, J. Comput. Phys. 183

(2) (2002) 400421.

[38] M. Rudman, A volume tracking method for interfacial ows with large density variations, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 28 (1998)

357378.

[39] G. Ryskin, L.G. Leal, Numerical solution of free boundary problems in uid mechanics. Part 2 buoyancy-driven motion of a gas

bubble through a quiescent liquid, J. Fluid Mech. 148 (1984) 1935.

[40] R. Scardovelli, S. Zaleski, Interface reconstruction with least-square t and split EulerianLagrangian advection, Int. J. Numer.

Meth. Fluids 41 (2003) 251274.

[41] Seungwon Shin, Damir Juric, Modeling three-dimensional multiphase ow using a level contour reconstruction method for front

tracking without connectivity, J. Comp. Phys. 180 (2) (2002) 427470.

[42] C.-W. Shu, S. Osher, Ecient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock capturing schemes, ii, J. Comput. Phys. 83 (1989)

3278.

[43] J. Strain, Tree methods for moving interfaces, J. Comput. Phys. 151 (2) (1999) 616648.

[44] G. Strang, On the construction and comparison of dierence schemes, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 5 (1968) 506517.

[45] M. Sussman, A second order coupled levelset and volume of uid method for computing growth and collapse of vapor bubbles,

Journal of Computational Physics 187 (2003) 110136.

[46] M. Sussman, A parallelized, adaptive algorithm for multiphase ows in general geometries, Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 435

444.

[47] M. Sussman, A. Almgren, J. Bell, P. Colella, L. Howell, M. Welcome, An adaptive level set approach for incompressible two-phase

ows, J. Comput. Phys. 148 (1999) 81124.

[48] M. Sussman, D. Dommermuth, The numerical simulation of ship waves using cartesian grid methods, in: Proceedings of the 23rd

Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, September, 2000, Val-De-Reuel, France.

505

[49] M. Sussman, M.Y. Hussaini, A discontinuous spectral element method for the level set equation, J. Scientic Computing 19 (2003)

479500.

[50] M. Sussman, E.G. Puckett, A coupled level set and volume of uid method for computing 3D and axisymmetric incompressible twophase ows, J. Comp. Phys. 162 (2000) 301337.

[51] M. Sussman, P. Smereka, S.J. Osher, A level set approach for computing solutions to incompressible two-phase ow, J. Comput.

Phys. 114 (1994) 146159.

[52] O. Tatebe, The multigrid preconditioned conjugate gradient method, in: 6th Copper Mountain Conference on Multigrid Methods,

Copper Mountain, CO, April 49, 1993.

[53] S.O. Unverdi, G. Tryggvason, A front-tracking method for viscous, incompressible, multi-uid ows, J. Comput. Phys. 100 (1992)

2537.

[54] B. van Leer, Towards the ultimate conservative dierence scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunovs method, J. Comput. Phys.

32 (1979) 101136.

[55] M. Williams, D. Kothe, E.G. Puckett, Convergence and accuracy of kernel-based continuum surface tension models, in: Proceedings

of the 13th U.S. National Congress of Applied Mechanics, Gainesville, FL, June 1621, 1998.

[56] J. Wu, Wind-induced drift currents, J. Fluid Mech. 68 (1975) 4970.

[57] B. Yang, A. Prosperetti, A second-order boundary-tted projection method for free-surface ow computations, J. Comput. Phys. 213

(2006) 574590.

[58] X. Yang, A. James, J. Lowengrub, X. Zheng, V. Cristini, An adaptive coupled level-set/volume-of-uid interface capturing method

for unstructured triangular grids, J. Comput. Phys. (in press), doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2006.01.007.

[59] Y. Yang, G. Tryggvason, Dissipation of energy by nite amplitude surface waves, Computers and Fluids 27 (1998) 829845.

[60] T. Ye, W. Shyy, J.N. Chung, A xed-grid, sharp interface method for bubble dynamics and phase change, J. Comp. Phys. 174 (2001)

781815.